Penny Grable v. Carolyn W. Colvin
770 F.3d 1196
8th Cir.2014Background
- Grable applied for Title II disability benefits in 2005 alleging disability since 2004 due to breathing problems and pain; ALJ initially denied, Appeals Council denied review, and district court remanded.
- On remand, Appeals Council directed ALJ to consider Grable’s subsequent DIB application filed during appeal, listing COPD, heart problems, fibromyalgia, chronic pain, swelling in legs/feet.
- ALJ held two more hearings; medical experts disputed fibromyalgia and supported light work capacity; Drs. Sandberg and Kumar offered fibromyalgia diagnoses conflicting with other experts.
- ALJ assigned great weight to Dr. Winkler (rheumatology) and Dr. Winfrey (psychological assessment), and less weight to Dr. Sandberg and Dr. Kumar, discounting fibromyalgia.
- ALJ found Grable had severe impairments (diffuse pain, mild asthma, mild obesity, depressive disorder), then concluded she could perform light work and thus was not disabled after five-step analysis.
- District court affirmed; Grable appeals, arguing error in treating-physician weight, credibility analysis, obesity consideration, and reliance on vocational expert; the court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did ALJ properly weigh treating physicians against experts? | Grable contends Sandberg/Kumar should control. | ALJ can discount treating opinions when other assessments are better supported. | No reversible error; ALJ properly weighed opinions. |
| Was ALJ's credibility assessment supported by substantial evidence? | Grable’s credibility should be given more weight. | Evidence of symptom exaggeration supports lower credibility. | Credibility supported by MMPI findings and other evidence. |
| Did ALJ adequately consider Grable’s obesity and past-work demands? | Obesity and file-clerk demands not properly analyzed. | ALJ accounted for obesity and past-work demands in RFC. | ALJ properly considered obesity and past-work requirements. |
| Was reliance on vocational expert testimony appropriate? | VE misidentified feasible jobs for Grable. | VE testimony supported by Grable’s RFC. | VE testimony appropriately relied upon; some identified jobs fit RFC. |
Key Cases Cited
- Turpin v. Colvin, 750 F.3d 989 (8th Cir. 2014) (treating-physician weight not automatic; reliability of opinions emphasized)
- Brown v. Astrue, 611 F.3d 941 (8th Cir. 2010) (specialist opinions preferred; weight of treating sources vary)
- Smith v. Colvin, 756 F.3d 621 (8th Cir. 2014) (treating opinions discounted when inconsistent with other evidence)
- Hensley v. Barnhart, 352 F.3d 353 (8th Cir. 2003) (consistency between opinions affects weight)
- Jenkins v. Apfel, 196 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 1999) (explanation required when relying on expert testimony over treating opinions)
- Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969 (8th Cir. 2000) (past-work findings must reflect physical/mental demands)
- Barrett v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 1019 (8th Cir. 1994) (unemployment-benefits evidence can bear on credibility)
- Cox v. Barnhart, 471 F.3d 902 (8th Cir. 2006) (review of credibility and substantial-evidence standard)
- Weiler v. Apfel, 179 F.3d 1107 (8th Cir. 1999) (vocational expert testimony can support RFC-based decisions)